Finance Committee on April 15th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, thank you both. We're out of time, Tamara.

We're going to Ms. Dzerowicz, and then back again to Mr. Ste-Marie.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the two presenters for their presentations and for this very important discussion.

Mr. Lukács, you've done a wonderful job in articulating your concerns with the deal on air passenger rights, but perhaps we can go through some of the good elements of the agreement. Do you think the section around the seven regional communities having air connection to the rest of Canada was a good part of the deal?

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

The biggest concern we have is that those issues, such as ensuring job security and regional connectivity, which are undoubtedly important, are put on the same footing as the legal right of passengers to a refund. A refund is a non-negotiable absolute legal right under the law, while regional service, if it is not profitable, is a discretionary matter.

Certainly, if we believe that those regional routes are important, then the taxpayers have to pay for them one way or another. That's a no-brainer. We don't find anything objectionable about it. The trouble is that the two things have been mixed and the waters have been muddied. It has created the impression that complying with the law is an optional and not mandatory obligation for large corporations.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Okay.

I always think it's good to find a little balance. There's always a silver lining and there's always good news in addition to things that can be improved. Is there anything in the agreement that you think is positive, such as the broad criteria around refunding customers, the commitment to protecting jobs and pensions in the collective agreement, the restriction on executive compensation, and buying back shares and dividends. Is there anything positive that you think is in place in the agreement?

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

Certainly, the limitation on buybacks and on restricting.... Was it bonuses or actual compensation?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I have here that it's restricting executive compensation and buying back shares and dividends.

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

Yes, those are positive measures, but in my opinion they don't make up for all the shortcomings of this deal, unfortunately.

Let me take off my air passenger rights advocate cap for a moment and just think as a taxpayer. The most significant shortcoming I see is the low amount of equity that Canada acquired. Canada should have acquired more equity in the company and less unsecured debt. Debt is probably the most important issue.

In the pursuit of public policy, there should also have been more accountability for the individual executives who were involved in misappropriating passengers' money.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate it. I wanted to try to see if there was anything positive in here, so at least we have a couple of important things.

I hope you'll also agree that the broad criteria around refunding for customers is at least a positive first step, while there might be some improvements as we go along.

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

In our view, compliance with the law should not be a negotiating chip, the same way it's not a negotiating chip whether one pays taxes or whether one can just go into a store and remove items from the shelf without paying. Compliance with the law and giving passengers refunds is a legal right when the airline itself cancels the flights. It was a mistake to even agree to talk about it as if it were not an absolute right.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Lukács.

Ms. Cameron, you mentioned support for a guaranteed basic income. Can you talk a bit about that? Are you talking about this as something that you think is important for Nova Scotia? Maybe you could just talk to us about why you think it would be an important model to adopt.

[Colleen Cameron]

I think it's an important model for all of Canada, not just Nova Scotia. If we want healthy people and healthy communities, we have to acknowledge that income plays a big role in that. With the CERB funding that came out, many people were moved out of poverty. The CERB was set at a level just above the poverty line. That made a big difference for a lot of people.

We have people living in poverty because the policy states that they can receive only a certain amount if they are disabled or on assistance or single parents. It is kept below the poverty line. To me, that's not right. If we'd made sure that everyone had a livable income and we'd had that in place before COVID hit, it would have saved all kinds of problems and people's lives. You wouldn't have people going from job to job just to make enough to barely get by. With their job and a guarantee, they would have enough money to do that and be well.

To me, it's a no-brainer, in the sense that people are ill, are not well, because they are living below the poverty line. A guaranteed livable income, just as we have with old age security, could be a guaranteed supplement there. What the government did with the CERB I think should be continued. We wouldn't be in such a housing crisis if people had sufficient funds to be able to afford housing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will have to end it there.

We're turning to Mr. Ste-Marie, who will be followed by Mr. Masse.

You have two and a half minutes, Gabriel.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Cameron, I'd like to thank you for your presentation. The project you're involved in is very interesting.

As I understand it, a multitude of models are needed to support social housing, whether in the city or in communities with fewer people.

Do you think federal funding for affordable housing is part of the solution?

[Colleen Cameron]

Yes, it is. It's a big part of it, and that's why, I believe, the housing strategy was put in place.

As you know, the federal government did a lot of input into affordable housing and housing 30, 40 and 50 years ago. My father was involved with the Veterans' Land Act to help people get housing. Then the government moved away from that, and municipalities don't take responsibility, so it has been a big issue. It has been neglected for so long that we are really in a major crisis. In order to get out of it, there needs to be partnership at all levels—federal, provincial and municipal, and with community members—but it should be done in such a way that every partner is respected and trusted, which is not the case now. We are often talked to and told to do things, without the government listening to what the issues are. I'm not saying to have a whole bunch of different models, but there just needs to be something for non-profit developers that is different from the for-profit developers, I would think.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

That's very interesting. Thank you.

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I was going to move on to Mr. Masse.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Brian.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Cameron, you mentioned the historical gap in housing. We had a program that we phased out. I used to work for the not-for-profit sector as well.

We have a lot of rebuilds that need to done. Can you comment on that and how poorly the municipalities are behind in terms of the current infrastructure and in saving some of the housing that has been languishing?

[Colleen Cameron]

I'm not sure if I can answer that, because my sense from the municipalities in Nova Scotia is that they don't have a role in building and maintaining affordable housing; they do bylaws and all kinds of things. Our local municipalities have contributed and supported us from the very beginning, but in terms of this, we were told very early on that they don't do housing.

I'm hoping that's going to change. I think that in some places it is; it's not the same all across the country. That is not a mandate that the municipalities feel. There is definitely a role, and I would like to see them play a much greater role in affordable housing, but my understanding is that they can do very little. If a place is run down, either it's condemned and torn down, and then the tenants have no place to live or continue to live in squalor. Municipalities don't have the tools or the power to be able to bring about changes.

I think there are a lot of things that could be done differently. One of them is that we just need more stock. We just need more houses that are affordable.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I know that I'm running out of time here, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thanks to both of you.

We're turning to Mr. Kelly, who will be followed by Ms. Damoff. I think Ms. May wants a question, and I believe, Mr. Cummings, that you do too.

Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lukács, yours was a really interesting presentation, as were some of the comments we've had so far. I think a lot of Canadians were somewhat surprised by the approach of bailing out one company as opposed to presenting a package to an industry and leaving it up to any of the participants to decide whether or not to opt in to be bailed out.

Could you give us a little more on that? You mentioned it in your opening statement, but you didn't get a chance to elaborate.

[Dr. Gábor Lukács]

Our concern relates on the one hand to passenger refunds. There are passengers from WestJet, from Air Transat, from Sunwing and from Porter, just to name a few, who are waiting for refunds. Those airlines, just like any other airline, owe those passengers a refund but have not fully complied with the obligation. In fact, Air Transat and Sunwing haven't complied with it at all.

The concern from a taxpayer and a competitive market perspective is that giving a pile of money to one competitor while leaving the others hanging out to dry skews the marketplace. It creates an uneven playing field. It gives unfair advantage to one competitor over the other. It also harms the consumers and it harms the employees.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Absolutely, but there seems to be an understanding that there are negotiations under way.

Do you expect to see a variety of different deals brought out in the coming days, or do you have any idea what they're doing?